unpublish_datafilePull a published datafile off the CDN so its URL stops serving.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datafile_id | Yes | the datafile id to pull from the CDN |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| json | No | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| schema_id | No | ||
| datafile_id | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| display_name | Yes | ||
| content_sha256 | No | ||
| last_published_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the mechanism ('off the CDN') and the observable effect ('URL stops serving'). It clarifies that the action stops serving rather than deleting the underlying datafile, which is valuable beyond the structured annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with zero filler. The most important information ('pull off the CDN' and 'URL stops serving') is front-loaded and immediately actionable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with a destructive annotation and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context. It states the precondition ('published datafile'), the action, and the consequence, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already states that datafile_id is 'the datafile id to pull from the CDN'. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Pull') with a specific resource ('datafile') and a clear effect ('URL stops serving'), making it immediately distinguishable from delete_datafile, publish_datafile, and get_datafile. The phrase 'published datafile' precisely identifies the target state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when a datafile is published and you need to stop its CDN URL from serving. It does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, but the single-scope phrasing and sibling context make the intended use unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every resource family follows the same verb+noun pattern and each tool name uniquely identifies a resource-action pair (create_app vs create_app_version vs update_app vs publish_app). Closest overlaps like analyze_resource vs get_resource_graph and patch_datafile vs update_datafile are explicitly differentiated by their descriptions, so misselection risk is low despite the scale.
Names are almost uniformly verb_noun snake_case with a consistent lifecycle vocabulary: create/get/update/delete/list/publish/unpublish/version. Minor outliers like whoami and run_schedule_now are idiomatic and do not break the predictability of the set.
At 93 tools this far exceeds the calibration's 50+ extreme-mismatch case. The count is inflated by repeating create/get/update/delete/version/publish/unpublish across ten resource families; even though each family is systematic, the combined surface is very hard for an agent to navigate and keep in context.
Core CRUD/publish/version lifecycles are present for apps, workflows, endpoints, schedules, schemas, datafiles, and api templates, and dependency analysis is well covered. However, secret creation/updating, asset upload, custom-domain deletion, and version-range enumeration for several resource types are absent or left to the external dashboard, so agents hit a few manual dead ends.